Champagne and spoons

[athon]

I've come across this little piece of urban wisdom many times in the past (especially having worked in hospitality before), and in spite of having experimented with it unsuccessfully, am still curious if it works.

Some colleagues at school have sworn by it with the usual 'I've done it for years' anecdotal nonsense. The head of science explained a hypothesis for why it could work, but then said she had never experimented herself.

The concept is that sticking a spoon, handle down, into an open bottle of champagne retains its fizz for a longer period. It was rationalized that the spoon prevents air from moving across the neck of the bottle, helping prevent CO2 from escaping. While plausible, there are many problems with this concept.

Has anybody tried it?

Athon

 

[Tricky]

I've come across this little piece of urban wisdom many times in the past (especially having worked in hospitality before), and in spite of having experimented with it unsuccessfully, am still curious if it works.

Some colleagues at school have sworn by it with the usual 'I've done it for years' anecdotal nonsense. The head of science explained a hypothesis for why it could work, but then said she had never experimented herself.

The concept is that sticking a spoon, handle down, into an open bottle of champagne retains its fizz for a longer period. It was rationalized that the spoon prevents air from moving across the neck of the bottle, helping prevent CO2 from escaping. While plausible, there are many problems with this concept.

Has anybody tried it?

Athon

My wife swears by this. I have offered to test it by using identical bottles of champagne and having her taste them, but oddly, she has declined to have her belief debunked.

Now I can agree that any obstruction to the mouth of a bottle would prevent CO2 escape, but I argue that the obstruction would not be sufficient to be noticable.

However, Hollywood Squares reported it as true the other day, so I cannot argue with the scientific authorities.

 

[WanderingKnight]

Uncle Cecil says no, but the version of the rumor/myth/hypocrapha that he tested revolved around using a silver spoon, and not finding on to fit, he used a silver chain

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_121.html

 

[athon]

For all intensive purposes, I think it has to be experimented using a spoon (maybe the shape has some significance, or perhaps the fact it extends from the bottle).

Nevertheless, this line takes the cake:

Conclusion #2: if you want your condom to inflate when things get shaking, keep the stopper on the alcoholic beverages.

Haha.

Athon

 

[Hamish]

The spoon in a champagne bottle is just a myth. It has been tested (I could probably dig out a reference from a physics magazine if pressed) and been shown to be false. As I recall, the whole thing revolves around the assumption that champagne goes flat fairly quickly. In fact, champagne stays fizzy for longer than people think. Putting the spoon in makes no difference whatsoever.

I'll check up and see if I can find anything more concrete than my own memory.

 

[Skeptoid]

I've never had an open bottle of sparkling wine around long enough for it to go flat.

Lack of sufficient pressure to keep the CO₂ in solution is why it goes flat. I can't think of any mechanism by which an upside-down spoon in the bottle would be as effective as an airtight stopper.

 

[Hamish]

Found it!

New Scientist debunked the myth on 13th May 2000, page 39.

Pretty much what I said above except they have a neat little graph showing "fizziness" vs time. The graph shows no overall difference between a bottle with or without a spoon. Interestingly, the champagne was not considered totally flat until approximately 96 hours after it was opened.

I should point out that the "fizziness" was kind of a subjective measure - nothing to do with amount of dissolved CO2 per litre but rated by blind testers relative to fresh champagne on a scale of 0-100. Still, the spoon and non-spoon showed no difference anyway.